DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 06 August 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 04 August 2021 in which claim 16 has been amended and claim 22 has been added. Claims 1-19, 22 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 22 recites that the first instruction is received by the accelerator from the central coordinating server, however, claim 1 from which claim 22 depends recites that a memory of the accelerator is programmed with the first instruction during a manufacturing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-17, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGrace et al (hereinafter “Degrace”, 2022/0329528) in view of Ballard et al (hereinafter “Ballard”, 2021/0226846), Brogle et al (hereinafter “Brogle”, 2022/0303137), and MILOJICIC et al (hereinafter “Milojicic”, 2022/0291952).
As per Claim 1, Degrace discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by an accelerator of a smart network interface card (smartNIC), a first instruction received from a memory of the accelerator and the first instruction instructing the accelerator to register a pairing between the accelerator and a remote programming data plane of a device of a plurality of devices that is physically distinct from the smart network interface card and is communicatively connected to the smart network interface card via a network path (at least paragraph 116-118, 57, 74-75; see also para. 364-370; sNIC (smartNIC) pairing between two different appliances; SDN appliance may be separate physical assembly);
accessing, by the accelerator, a pairing rule from a programming data plane that is local to the smart network interface card (smartNIC), the pairing rule indicating the plurality of devices are available for pairing with the accelerator (at least paragraph 116-127, 169; [0124] In case of outage (e.g., the entire SDN appliance is not available for a longer period of time), the “Pairing” relationship might be changed by the control plane. [0125] In this case the control plane can: [0126] Withdraw the “pairing” relationship from sNIC (unpair the sNIC) [0127] Establish a new “pairing” relationship to another sNIC (pair different sNIC));
storing, by the accelerator, registration data indicating the pairing between the accelerator and the remote programming data plane of the device based at least in part on the {instructions} (at least paragraph 116-124; paired);
receiving, by the accelerator from the remote programming data plane, a second instruction over the network path, the second instruction associated with processing one or more flows (at least paragraph 116-124; Once the “pairing” relationship is established, flows may start being replicated and synced. SNICs may be responsible for replicating and syncing flows across sNICs in the “paired” relationship);
processing, by the accelerator, instruction data corresponding to the second instruction based at least in part on determining that the second instruction was received from the remote programming data plane of the device over the network path based at least in part on determining that the accelerator is paired with the remote programming plane of the device (at least paragraph 116-129; 205; flow table and Once the “pairing” relationship is established, flows may start being replicated and synced).
DeGrace fails to explicitly disclose wherein a memory of the accelerator is programmed with the first instruction during a manufacturing of the smart NIC. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Ballard. Ballard discloses, in an analogous art, factory provisioning a smartNIC with instructions allowing the smartNIC to be sent to the end user and upon powering up registering with the provisioning server and subsequent network booting to the respective host the smartNIC is programmed to connect (at least paragraph 38, 48-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Ballard’s smartNIC deployment with DeGrace as Ballard teaches simplifying the end user experience, allowing the user to power up the device with the smartNIC and the smartNIC is registered and provisioned automatically.
DeGrace and Ballard fail to explicitly disclose validating, by the accelerator, the first instruction based at least in part on i) the first instruction instructing the accelerator to register the pairing between the accelerator and the remote programming data plane of the device, ii) the pairing rule indicating the device for pairing with the accelerator. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Brogle. Brogle discloses, in an analogous art, a secure circuit accelerator validating host pairing data including encrypting and decrypting the pairing data (at least paragraph 33, 45-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Brogle’s validation with DeGrace/ Ballard as Brogle teaches before pairing the accelerator secure circuit with the host, the authenticity of the pairing can be verified and attesting to the received data before pairing the devices together to ensure security of the communication channel.
Degrace, Ballard and Brogle fail to explicitly disclose iii) a determination that the device is a highest ranked device of the plurality of devices for pairing with the accelerator based at least in part on the pairing rules. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Milojicic. Milojicic discloses accelerator assignment / pairing to smart NIC being prioritized (at least Milojicic paragraph 52-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Milojicic’s ranking or prioritizing with Degrace / Ballard/ Brogle, as Milojicic teaches it being well known that some accelerator perform better for some particular requests than others and for best quality of service, pairing with the prioritized accelerator would be a well known and obvious choice and modification to Degrace’s pairing having options but Degrace not describing how one pairing changing to the other pairing is explicitly determined.
As per Claim 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the pairing indicates that the accelerator is configured to perform at least one of: (I) accepting subsequent programming instructions from the remote programming data plane to program the accelerator, (II) rejecting subsequent programming instructions from other devices to program the accelerator, or (III) forwarding at least a portion of packets received by the accelerator to the remote programming data plane (at least paragraph 81-82, 117-124, 369; stateful network policy-based forwarding and security 1350 performed on SmartNICs 1340; Once the “pairing” relationship is established, flows may start being replicated and synced).
As per Claim 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second instruction is included within a single control packet, the single control packet having characteristics corresponding to at least one of: (I) being formatted according to an Internet Protocol (IP) header, a source address of the header identifying the remote programming data plane, (II) having a payload that fits within a jumbo frame, or (III) including the second instruction within a predefined data structure of the payload of the single control packet (at least paragraph 50, 69, 239; header information including source and/or destination addresses, protocol identifiers, etc; virtual IP).
As per Claim 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the instruction data further comprises storing the instruction data as programming instructions, the method further comprising:
forwarding, by the accelerator, the data packet to the remote programming data plane via the network path based at least in part on the stored programming instructions (at least paragraph 116-129; 205; flow table and Once the “pairing” relationship is established, flows may start being replicated and synced).
As per Claim 5. Degrace fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first instruction is encrypted within an encrypted packet using a cryptographic key and transmitted to the smart network interface card via the network path. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Brogle. Brogle discloses, in an analogous art, a secure circuit accelerator validating host pairing data including encrypting and decrypting the pairing data with encryption keys (at least paragraph 33, 45-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Brogle’s validation with DeGrace as Brogle teaches before pairing the accelerator secure circuit with the host, the authenticity of the pairing can be verified and attesting to the received data before pairing the devices together to ensure security of the communication channel.
As per Claim 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the first instruction is received from: (I) a local programming data plane that is local to the smart network interface card, or (II) a third device that is remote to the smart network interface card (at least paragraph 116-118, 57, 74-75; see also para. 364-370; sNIC (smartNIC) pairing between two different appliances; SDN appliance may separate physical assembly).
As per Claim 8. The smart network interface card of claim 7, wherein the memory comprises further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more of the plurality of processors, further cause the smart network interface card to: determine, by the accelerator, that a second pairing between the accelerator and a second remote programming data plane of the second device is defective based at least in part on determining that the second device is unreachable via the network path, and wherein the first device corresponds to an alternative device for pairing the remote programming data plane with the accelerator in an event when the second device is unreachable (at least paragraph 104-115, 124, 150; Single link failure—Single link between TOR and single sNIC becomes unavailable; Passive Appliance becoming active; In case of outage (e.g., the entire SDN appliance is not available for a longer period of time), the pPairing” relationship might be changed by the control plane.).
As per Claim 9. The smart network interface card of claim 7, further comprising: a programming data plane comprising a second set of one or more processors of the plurality of processors, wherein the memory comprises further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more of the plurality of processors, further cause the smart network interface card to: receive, by the accelerator, a second instruction to register a new pairing between the accelerator and the programming data plane; and store, by the accelerator, second registration data indicating the new pairing between the accelerator and the programming data plane (at least paragraph 118, 126-129; Withdraw the “pairing” relationship from sNIC (unpair the sNIC), Establish a new “pairing” relationship to another sNIC (pair different sNIC)).
As per Claim 10. The smart network interface card of claim 7, wherein the memory comprises further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more of the plurality of processors, further cause the smart network interface card to: receive, by the accelerator, a third instruction from a second remote programming data plane of a second device via the network path; and reject, by the accelerator, the third instruction based at least in part on the stored registration data indicating the pairing with the remote programming data plane of the first device (at least paragraph 118, 126-129; “pairing” with only one other device; if paired and pairing relationship not withdrawn, cant establish new pairing and new pairing attempt would result in error; Withdraw the “pairing” relationship from sNIC (unpair the sNIC), Establish a new “pairing” relationship to another sNIC (pair different sNIC)).
As per Claim 12. Degrace fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second instruction is included within a single control packet that is encrypted, and wherein the memory comprises further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more of the plurality of processors, further cause the smart network interface card to: retrieve, by the accelerator, a cryptographic key that is associated with the remote programming data plane and operable for decrypting the single control packet; and validate, by the accelerator, that the single control packet is associated with a currently paired remote programming data plane based at least in part on decrypting the encrypted single control packet to obtain the second instruction. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Brogle. Brogle discloses, in an analogous art, a secure circuit accelerator validating host pairing data including encrypting and decrypting the pairing data with encryption keys (at least paragraph 33, 45-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Brogle’s validation with DeGrace as Brogle teaches before pairing the accelerator secure circuit with the host, the authenticity of the pairing can be verified and attesting to the received data before pairing the devices together to ensure security of the communication channel.
As per Claim 13. The smart network interface card of claim 12, wherein processing the instruction data further comprises programming, by the accelerator, the memory with instructions for processing subsequent packets received by the accelerator that are associated with the one or more flows (at least paragraph 119-129; processing flows).
As per Claim 14. The smart network interface card of claim 7, wherein the memory comprises further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more of the plurality of processors, further cause the smart network interface card to: receive, by the accelerator, a data packet; determine, by the accelerator, that the data packet should be further processed by the remote programming data plane; transmit, by the accelerator, the data packet to the remote programming data plane via the network path; receive, by the accelerator, the second instruction via a single control packet, the second instruction including instructions to add a new cache entry to an accelerator cache, the new cache entry associated with a new approved flow; and forwarding, by the accelerator, the data packet based at least in part on determining that the data packet is associated with the new approved flow (at least paragraph 186-205, 248-250; as the online SNIC receives traffic, adding new flows to the flow table with the assigned color and replicated new flows to paired sNICs, wherein all connections use the same color until the pairing fails, and continues using the same color if there is no active pairing; when pairing is re-established, changing the assigned color to a new color; using the new color for new flows that are added to the flow table and replicating new flows to the paired sNIC).
As per Claim 15. The smart network interface card of claim 7, wherein the memory comprises further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more of the plurality of processors, further cause the smart network interface card to: establish, by the accelerator, a Transport Control Protocol (TCP) connection with the remote programming data plane, wherein the second instruction is transmitted by the remote programming data plane to the accelerator via at least one control packet over the Transport Control Protocol connection (at least paragraph 69; preservation of transient states (for example, TCP flow state)).
As per Claim 17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 16, wherein the second instruction is received within a single control packet, a payload of the single control packet including programming instructions associated with at least one of: (I) a flow expiry, (II) a newly approved flow, (III) a flow policy, (IV) a security list update, or (V) flow statistics (at least paragraph 189-198; new flows added to flow table).
Claims 7, 11, 16, 19 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1, 4, 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
As per Claim 22. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the first instruction comprises: determining, by the accelerator, that an active pairing with an existing remote programming data plane of a host device is unavailable via the network path; transmitting, by the accelerator via the network path, a request for pairing instructions to a predefined Internet Protocol (IP) address of a central coordinating server; and receiving, by the accelerator from the central coordinating server in response to the request, the first instruction indicating an alternative remote programming data plane of the device for pairing with the accelerator (at least paragraph 116-127, 169; [0124] In case of outage (e.g., the entire SDN appliance is not available for a longer period of time), the “Pairing” relationship might be changed by the control plane. [0125] In this case the control plane can: [0126] Withdraw the “pairing” relationship from sNIC (unpair the sNIC) [0127] Establish a new “pairing” relationship to another sNIC (pair different sNIC); par. 64-65; SDN control plane central server).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degrace in view of Ballard, Brogle and Milojicic, further in view of McDowall et al (hereinafter “McDowall”, 2022/0353240).
Degrace, Brogle, and Milojicic fail to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processor to: retrieve, by the accelerator, a flow statistics log; and transmit, by the accelerator to the remote programming data plane, the flow statistics log to be used by the remote programming data plane to generate a statistics report. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of McDowall. McDowall teaches, in an analogous Smart NIC art, offloading processing to a Smart NIC including flow statistics (at least paragraph 53-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of McDowall’s Smart NIC flow statistics with Degrace, Ballard, Brogle and Milojicic as Degrace’s Smart NIC would have the flow information and this would further be processing the Smart NIC could perform to offload unnecessary processing from a host device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that DeGrace does not disclose a smartNIC accelerator locally evaluating pairing rules to determine whether a remote device is a “highest ranked device”, as DeGrace sNICs pairing assignments are dictated top-down by an external control plane.
However, the control plane is not external, it is part of the SDN appliance, see Fig. 7 and par. 64-65. The pairing being dictated top-down is not persuasive as the only description in the instant application for ‘rank’ is for the top-down pairing rule in 513 of Fig. 5, see par. 76, the rank of hosts is simply a top-down list in the rule, not different from DeGrace’s choosing one remote sNIC and then another, such being ‘ranked’ in some manner as one is chosen over the other, even if in such top-down list as Applicant argues and the specification also uses. The specification does not describe how these hosts are ranked, nor why, nor if they change order or ranking and thus only listing them in an arbitrary order and choosing the first from the list and if that one is unavailable choosing the next and so on. Such is identical to how DeGrace is selecting the next pairing.
Milojicic is simply relied on for disclosing that ranking and prioritizing smart NICs with accelerators is well known for dispatching requests from global sources (at least paragraph 53), wherein the smart NIC could be local or remote and thereby the remotely paired device / sNIC of DeGrace. The argument that Milojicic does not access local pairing rules to evaluate, rank, and pair itself is not persuasive as Milojicic is not relied on for all of the features argued.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Milojicic is prioritizing assigning/pairing smart NICs with accelerators based on some priority which one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prioritize or rank the pairing of DeGrace rather than a simple top-down selection of pairing as any pairing when having multiple options can benefit from prioritizing them accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights